Don't see a problem. Convicted child molester, recently reassessed and confirmed at risk for re-offense. Married to person with addiction issues. Living in squalor that would present a risk to any child, let alone a baby.

Kahabut:Also... "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled. "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

But that being said I understand why the government would feel its in the best interest of their children. These guys certainly haven' had a good track record.

Did you even read the farking article? There was a lot more to it than "a lack of a good track record"

Also, you don't get a "chance" at parenting after you molest children. No farking way. One and done, just like murder - you don't get a second chance, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 labeled and segregated from society as is necessary and possible until your sick, sorry ass dies. Giving people like that a 'second chance' is not what society needs.

He was 12. He served his jail time. And besides that, yes if you have gone to jail for something like that at least in the USA you can go on to have a family. At least to my knowledge you can.

That being said, I do understand the court's reasoning as there were a lot of issues since he was 12 and obviously he wouldn't be a good parent. But I have a hard time with punishment for a "future" crime. Either sterilize the guy or let him have a family. If you let him have a family, keep a good eye on him and the minute something gets farked up, take the kid away and put the parents in jail.

dready zim:This is why there should be a basic test to become a parent and if you don`t pass you stay sterile...

You could have questions like

Your baby is crying do you,

A, Check its nappyB, See if it wants a bottleC, Drink some ginD, Go out and play bingoE, Hit itF, Try to have sex with it

Please circle two answers

That sort of stuff. Combined with at least the sort of checks you would do on any person who was going to be in close proximity alone with a child for an extended period of time.

fickenchucker:Don't see a problem here--except maybe not forcing sterilization on him. If he's to be never trusted around babies, why is he allowed to make them?

A big touchy gropey punchy pile of THIS. All he has to do is not have the baby at the hospital or have his `wife` go to any pre natal checkups (and I can imagine these people doing that if they were smart enough to think of it) and BINGO.

/Is gropey a real word? Not sure but I`ve heard it used plenty of times `they are a bit gropey`

xanadian:Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

"But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats."

Obviously this is speculation and IANAL, but I'm going to look at this from the perspective of the time it happened, not modern interpretations (we've all seen the threads here where patting someone on the butt is sexual assault, but that's a relatively new thing).

Sexual assault = probably at least groped someone, if not holding them down or something like that. Invitation, I've never heard that one, but maybe luring another kid into the situation? Assault with a weapon - pretty explanatory, and 17 years ago probably at least something like a large stick or bat. Uttering threats - probably pretty crazy stuff to have it included in a 12 YO's record. Basically I get a major Eric Smith vibe off this guy... and coincidentally that happened just a couple of years before this guy's record started. *shudder*

foxyshadis:xanadian: Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

Sealed records. It must have been something pretty heinous to be the primary reason though, so I'm imagining raping a preschooler, not pissing on the fence. But I don't know, the prosecution can't say, and he certainly won't tell how bad (or not) it really was.

My guess is raping an infant. That's why the judge won't let him have a baby in the house. Assault + invite + interferences could be from one incident. If he grabbed any object, that could be assault with a weapon.

So, let's pull a guess out of thin air. Babysitting, rapes the infant / toddler and commits the assault, invite, and interference. Parents figure it out / bust in the act, he grabs a widget and says, "I'll kill you if you call the police."

Lollipop165:Kahabut: Also... "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled. "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

That's pretty much what I was thinking too.

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Lollipop165: I'm kinda torn on this one - they haven't even had the chance to parent.

But that being said I understand why the government would feel its in the best interest of their children. These guys certainly haven' had a good track record.

Did you even read the farking article? There was a lot more to it than "a lack of a good track record"

Also, you don't get a "chance" at parenting after you molest children. No farking way. One and done, just like murder - you don't get a second chance, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 labeled and segregated from society as is necessary and possible until your sick, sorry ass dies. Giving people like that a 'second chance' is not what society needs.

He was 12. He served his jail time. And besides that, yes if you have gone to jail for something like that at least in the USA you can go on to have a family. At least to my knowledge you can.

That being said, I do understand the court's reasoning as there were a lot of issues since he was 12 and obviously he wouldn't be a good parent. But I have a hard time with punishment for a "future" crime. Either sterilize the guy or let him have a family. If you let him have a family, keep a good eye on him and the minute something gets farked up, take the kid away and put the parents in jail.dready zim: This is why there should be a basic test to become a parent and if you don`t pass you stay sterile...

You could have questions like

Your baby is crying do you,

A, Check its nappyB, See if it wants a bottleC, Drink some ginD, Go out and play bingoE, Hit itF, Try to have sex with it

Please circle two answers

That sort of stuff. Combined with at least the sort of checks y ...

But the part where the article said that the LAST THREE of the four children were taken away at the hospital means that the first one was not, right? And they lost that one after having some time to try out their parenting abilities.

IDK how it works in Canada, but my mom's good friend was immediately given custody of her grandson after her daughter was thought to have shaken her oldest child, her ex-husband was immediately awarded custody of their second child because of what she did to their first child. If she had more children, TX would have taken them away immediately too, even though she didn't actually get charged with a crime (the physical damage was likely, but not conclusively, due to shaking, but it was enough that they couldn't take the risk with more children.)

Kahabut:Car_Ramrod: I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

Yeah, I'm actually kinda curious what he did to deserve being ostracized so thoroughly. Basically, I wonder if I agree or not.

For my money though, if the guy did something so horrible, why is he alive at all? And if it wasn't bad enough to die for, why is it such a big deal that he can't even be around peers? Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

Also... "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled. "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

The difference in this case is that the parents are using the child to learn things like `do you hit your baby for crying` instead of `what temperature EXACTLY is the right one for a bottle`

Also, is that the case? Two levels of punishment?

1, ok to have children to experiment on and to be allowed to be around peers in the immediate aftermath of the offense2, dead

3/10 too extreme. You need to build up to the extreme slowly and get some bites first. Try not to say "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works. " too often and only do so in the right context.

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic:But the part where the article said that the LAST THREE of the four children were taken away at the hospital means that the first one was not, right? And they lost that one after having some time to try out their parenting abilities.

IDK how it works in Canada, but my mom's good friend was immediately given custody of her grandson after her daughter was thought to have shaken her oldest child, her ex-husband was immediately awarded custody of their second child because of what she did to their first child. If she had more children, TX would have taken them away immediately too, even though she didn't actually get charged with a crime (the physical damage was likely, but not conclusively, due to shaking, but it was enough that they couldn't take the risk with more children.)

You are right, I thought there were 3 kids taken directly after birth but there were 4.

That being said, in your story, how can TX do that if she was never charged with any crime? I'd get a lawyer on that stat.

1. The judge's ruling also referenced a recent sexual behaviour assessment that concluded the father's likelihood of re-offending in a "violent manner is deemed to be in the high-risk range."

Well, that sounds pretty bad.

2. McMunagle said the father did not complete recent sex behaviour tests because "it appears he did not like the initial results of the testing and has subsequently refused to complete the testing."

Wait, the previous statement was based on an incomplete assessment? He needs to complete the assessment, but exactly how are they able to come up with a definitive answer if he doesn't in fact, complete it?

3. He pleaded guilty for sex crimes against children when he was 12. "I was a kid. I didn't know what I was doing, so I pleaded guilty. But there was no sex, it was experimenting as a 12-year-old boy."

Once again, pretty bad. Context would be nice though. Was it another 12-year old, was it a 15-year old? Who was it?

4. But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats.

No, all his record shows is that they tagged him with everything they could. Once again, context...

This is like the sex offender registry, when you freak out because your neighbor is on there, and then you find out that he got busted pissing in an alley after leaving the bar one night. This story is short on details, but LONG on condemnation.

"He's now an unemployed labourer currently living under house arrest at a roadside motel."

After all the other atrocities in his history, all I needed to read was this to understand why they took his child away. There's nothing wrong with being temporarily unemployed but i doubt that's the case here. He insists he hasn't done anything wrong since his youth-diddling youth. Why is he currently under house arrest while lacking the house?

This is not something you want to admit while trying to paint yourself as a victim to the media.

What? The fact that at a very important time in your life, both socially and developmentally, the State put you in the school version of solitary confinement? I don't know what he did with who, because the story actually sucks, but this is a truly bullshiat move, and yes, it makes him the victim in that part of it.

Lollipop165:ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: But the part where the article said that the LAST THREE of the four children were taken away at the hospital means that the first one was not, right? And they lost that one after having some time to try out their parenting abilities.

IDK how it works in Canada, but my mom's good friend was immediately given custody of her grandson after her daughter was thought to have shaken her oldest child, her ex-husband was immediately awarded custody of their second child because of what she did to their first child. If she had more children, TX would have taken them away immediately too, even though she didn't actually get charged with a crime (the physical damage was likely, but not conclusively, due to shaking, but it was enough that they couldn't take the risk with more children.)

You are right, I thought there were 3 kids taken directly after birth but there were 4.

That being said, in your story, how can TX do that if she was never charged with any crime? I'd get a lawyer on that stat.

Unemployed, unwilling to be medicated bipolar? She's not getting a lawyer anytime soon. I want to say there is some history of drug abuse, but I am not sure what or if I am just confusing untreated mental illness with meth crazy. I think CPS brought out the How Bout No Bear for her parenting or being left with children because her new boyfriend's ex-wife got custody of their kids after she found out he was working a night job and leaving Crazypants with his kids. All I know is that if you can convince Gayle that she should take the side of her former son-in-law, you might have witnessed a miracle/sign of the apocalypse, because that woman has more hate in her heart for that man than even her own ex-husbands (yes, plural, she provided an obviously stable home for her daughter while she was growing up!) But she's fully supportive of him having 100% custody of the two oldest and helped him have her parental rights terminated (I think it helped her adopt the youngest that is not a product of the marriage, too.)

He pleaded guilty for sex crimes against children when he was 12. "I was a kid. I didn't know what I was doing, so I pleaded guilty. But there was no sex, it was experimenting as a 12-year-old boy."

Once again, pretty bad. Context would be nice though. Was it another 12-year old, was it a 15-year old? Who was it?

I don't know where to begin to look for that information given Canadian censorship.

The article does say "But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats." That he used a weapon might indicate that the victim wasn't already helpless before him, i.e. not a VERY young child or a cripple.

So the penalty of sexual experimentation at age 12 includes blocking from public schools, public humiliation that prevents him from getting a job, and having no children of his own. Ever. Now, he's 29 (17 years later). I don't think that at that 29, I felt the same way about anything I felt when I was 12 years old, especially with regards to sexuality.

Those offenses are describing a single scenario where a 12 year old asked (or directed), someone under 16 to touch him, and actually touched THEM in some way determined to be sexual. The sheer fact that this occurred, would land the "sexual assault" charge.Then later it's possible he told the victim to not tell on them, in a threatening manner, apparently with some sort of weapon at hand.

I say "later" because the charge wasn't "sexual assault with a weapon", which under Canadian law means that it was a separate event somehow. For the record, it also wasn't "causing bodily harm" so I guess he didn't actually use the weapon in question, or it was a pretty lame weapon to begin with.

Granted, the guy has other issues in his life, primarily stemming from this assault, it would seem. However, when you now take this story, and apply it to a scenario where some kid maliciously lies about an attack of this nature.. you can see that there's something(s) wrong with the system.

I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

Dead-Guy:I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

I do believe you're missing the part where they lived in a filthy house with dead animals and couldn't even take care of a dog or cat.

No, all his record shows is that they tagged him with everything they could. Once again, context...

This is like the sex offender registry, when you freak out because your neighbor is on there, and then you find out that he got busted pissing in an alley after leaving the bar one night. This story is short on details, but LONG on condemnation.

Are you mental? There is a lot more information there to support them not having kids even if you remove the conviction. Hell, the fact that they keep having kids knowing they will be taken away shows what state of mind they are in.

I can't believe people here are wondering "what happened" with that list of charges inferring it may have been some sort of petty kid on kid thing.

I'm no fan of the nanny state either but from the sounds of it this guy would be abusing and neglecting the kid before he got home from the hospital.

I read it and thought it was somewhat SHORT on condemnation. It ought to have started

"A couple who has repeatedly proven incapable of cleaning a house, staying sober, or keeping a dog alive has had their 4th child taken by a judge."

Okay, that makes it sound more like a local judge has become a kidnapper, but still.

The point is that it has no details on what he did at 12, why he's charged with those particular crimes or anything, it just makes sure to point out over and over that he's a "bad guy", but we don't really know, do we? Irresponsible? Yep. Bad parent? Sounds like it, but they're making him sound like a 12 year old Ted Bundy.

For perspective on those crimes of his, keep in mind that in the US, if you tell people to move across the room in a standoff situation, it becomes kidnapping.

Hell, for all we know, he played Dr with a buddy, was afraid of catching 'Gay' from it and told the other kid he'd kick his ass if he said anything. We don't know because they list a bunch of negative shiat and leave it to the readers to judge him. I don't know what his story is, but TFA is a straight up hit piece.

Car_Ramrod:Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

Dead-Guy:So the penalty of sexual experimentation at age 12 includes blocking from public schools, public humiliation that prevents him from getting a job, and having no children of his own. Ever. Now, he's 29 (17 years later). I don't think that at that 29, I felt the same way about anything I felt when I was 12 years old, especially with regards to sexuality.

Those offenses are describing a single scenario where a 12 year old asked (or directed), someone under 16 to touch him, and actually touched THEM in some way determined to be sexual. The sheer fact that this occurred, would land the "sexual assault" charge.Then later it's possible he told the victim to not tell on them, in a threatening manner, apparently with some sort of weapon at hand.

I say "later" because the charge wasn't "sexual assault with a weapon", which under Canadian law means that it was a separate event somehow. For the record, it also wasn't "causing bodily harm" so I guess he didn't actually use the weapon in question, or it was a pretty lame weapon to begin with.

Granted, the guy has other issues in his life, primarily stemming from this assault, it would seem. However, when you now take this story, and apply it to a scenario where some kid maliciously lies about an attack of this nature.. you can see that there's something(s) wrong with the system.

I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

........OR

He raped/assaulted a child, the judge knows it and is acting in the best interest of the children.

Hate to break it to you but there are some really terrible people out there and around 12 is usually when they start exhibiting those behaviors.

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

Maybe you should allow him to babysit your children to prove he is capable of exercising his "Basic Human Rights".

IRQ12:I can't believe people here are wondering "what happened" with that list of charges inferring it may have been some sort of petty kid on kid thing.

It could have easily been when you have teens getting put on sex offender registries for sending naked pics of themselves to each other. Look, sex crimes always sound bad, and whatever the situation that led to it being chargeable, whether the kid was a lot younger, or if even a day younger mattered in this(Being that they charge the older of the two, who knows here?), my point is that it COULD have been "some petty kid on kid thing", and they threw the book at him for whatever reason. Overzealous prosecutor, mandatory charges, mandatory minimum sentencing, who knows?

I'm not defending the guy, just trying to point out that the article sucks. There is a chance(as I mentioned in another post) that he just played doctor with a buddy, and then threatened him if he told anybody. Just going off the straight charges is never good, especially in this new era of registering everyone as a sex offender.

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

What about the right of the child to grow up in a clean, safe, heated home, where it doesn't reek of feces and dead animals?

The One True TheDavid:The article does say "But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats." That he used a weapon might indicate that the victim wasn't already helpless before him, i.e. not a VERY young child or a cripple.

That's all I'm looking for, actual context. He may be a little serial rapist, but they don't really give you much to go on.